DHARMAPURI SHANMUGHAM VIJAYGANESH, DHARMAPURI V. ITO , WARD 1, DHARMAPURI

ITA 1095/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Dharmapuri Shanmugham Vijayganesh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 15,51,500 made during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer had assessed these deposits under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained income. The assessee contended that these deposits were from the sale of ancestral property, a claim that was not substantiated in the initial assessments due to the absence of evidence and the assessee's lack of response to notices, attributed to his rural background and lack of education in digital communication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134941 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी) ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1095/CHNY/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Dharmapuri Shanmugham Vijayganesh, 80, 3 rd Street, Nesavalar Colony, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri – 636 701. PAN: BFFPS 0241J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dharmapuri. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Salem/11774/2019-20 dated 31.10.2022. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dharmapuri for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 27.12.2019. - 2 - ITA No.1095/Chny/2022 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of AO and CIT(A) making addition of cash deposits made by assessee during demonetization period amounting to Rs.15,51,500/- and taxing the same u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessment framed by AO vide order dated 27.12.2019 is practically ex-parte and without considering the claim that the cash deposits were made out of sale consideration of ancestral property of his father. The ld.counsel stated that the order of CIT(A) is also ex-parte as the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices posted in the portal and e-mail, as the assessee belongs to rural background and not well educated. Accordingly, he was not aware of the procedure of hearing notices posted in the portal and the e-mail. 3. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, first of all he drew my attention to para 4 of the assessment order and stated that the assessee has not provided any proof for sale of ancestral property in support of his claim and even, he drew me to para 4 of the CIT(A) order, wherein assessee was issued notices four times and served by ITBA / e-mail but no response from assessee. Hence, - 3 - ITA No.1095/Chny/2022 according to ld. Senior DR, there is no alternative with the AO or the CIT(A) than to assess the income u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, as the assessee was unable to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.15,51,500/-. 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee tried to convince that the assessee was of rural background and was unaware of hearing notices posted in the portal and e-mail. But, I’m not convinced with the reply, as the e-mail notices were served on the assessee, which were never denied by ld.counsel. But in the interest of substantial justice, I’m inclined to set aside the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- to the assessee. The assessee will file complete details of sale of property as well as cash deposits correlating with each of the entry of cash deposit viz-a-viz the sale of ancestral property as claimed by assessee. Hence, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce the challan before CIT(A) at the time of hearing and thereafter, the CIT(A) will hear the matter. In term of the - 4 - ITA No.1095/Chny/2022 above, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 rd February, 2023 at Chennai. SD/- (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 23 rd February, 2023 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.